Islands, Science and Creationism

[Ken Kinman]

     Perhaps the most important word in all this discussion is "traces".
Every documented specimen (living or fossil) provides a trace that must be
taken in context with other traces.
     The tricky part is not trying to read too much into a few or even a
single trace, such as that Cretaceous fossil tick in New Jersey.  Until we
have other early fossil ticks to place it in some context, I am still very
reluctant to believe that it hitched a ride on a bird from South America.
         ----- Cheers,   Ken Kinman

*******************************************
>From: Richard Jensen <rjensen at SAINTMARYS.EDU>
>Reply-To: Richard Jensen <rjensen at SAINTMARYS.EDU>
>To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>Subject: Re: Islands, Science and Creationism
>Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:11:11 -0700
>
>These postings seem, to me, to be missing my point.  Curtis initially wrote
>"organisms in their beings carry traces of their entire evolutionary
>history, in their locations they carry traces of their entire geographic
>history."
>
>If the latter is true, then simply knowing where an organism occurs
>provides information about its "entire geographic history."  Notice that
>there are no qualifiers in this statement, nothing to suggest context in
>which the statement is made, etc. Given Curtis' statement *as it stands*,
>what can any of you tell me about the geographic history of a species (what
>species is irrelevant to the question) that is found growing in a park in
>the city of South Bend, St. Joseph County, Indiana, USA?
>
>As Curtis noted, and I agreed, context is critical.  Without an appropriate
>taxonomic, phylogenetic, or biogeographic context, my guess is that no one
>can tell me anything about the geographic history of the unknown plant in
>question (except for the trivial observation that it is found where it is).
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dick
>--



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.